“The most entertaining ball is one that’s aggressive on the base paths. It’s a funny thing: Running brings your team together – and also brings the crowd to its feet.”
Back in September in this space I explored the components of baserunning. Along with a breakdown of how teams performed from 2000-2005, that analysis looked at how each component contributed to the whole and where baserunning fit into the big picture. In total magnitude, baserunning probably accounts for somewhere a shade under 15% of total offensive output. Within that 15%, advancing on hits (measured by EqHAR) accounts for 50% of that while advancing on fly balls takes a slightly larger share (EqAAR, 27%) of the remaining pie than does advancing on ground outs (EqGAR, 20%). Stolen bases, caught stealing, and pickoffs (EqSBR), have an overall negative value and so do not represent any of the pie.
This week we’ll update that piece by looking at the team results from 2006 and then move on to breaking down the metrics by position in an attempt to investigate differences between the leagues.
It’s a Team Game
Let’s kick things off with a look at the team totals for 2006.
2006 Team Baserunning Totals Team Lg Opp EqGAR Opp EqAAR Opp EqSBR Opp EqHAR Total ANA AL 311 5.08 304 1.77 196 -8.83 462 15.62 13.64 NYN NL 305 0.41 261 4.58 182 0.61 362 2.70 8.31 PHI NL 267 0.87 261 -0.40 118 1.16 419 3.45 5.08 SDN NL 282 0.44 299 1.12 159 2.76 427 -4.87 -0.56 PIT NL 295 0.53 265 3.42 97 -4.00 444 -0.81 -0.86 KCA AL 317 -0.94 236 5.88 101 -8.95 456 3.14 -0.87 ARI NL 324 -4.04 278 3.14 106 -3.41 447 3.05 -1.26 HOU NL 331 1.56 264 -4.33 121 -8.33 406 9.60 -1.50 CHN NL 352 0.47 243 -0.67 171 -5.60 395 2.86 -2.94 TEX AL 269 -2.59 298 -1.06 76 -3.17 440 2.53 -4.29 SLN NL 335 1.01 243 0.88 88 -8.42 426 1.93 -4.61 MIN AL 309 -0.54 263 -3.04 148 -7.27 493 5.88 -4.97 SEA AL 291 3.61 280 -1.05 149 -5.09 448 -2.64 -5.18 CLE AL 267 -3.49 244 0.95 82 -3.77 480 -0.50 -6.81 SFN NL 309 5.63 283 -6.70 84 -4.17 402 -1.65 -6.89 FLO NL 297 4.08 212 -0.43 172 -15.98 402 5.23 -7.09 BAL AL 308 -3.11 296 -2.85 151 1.99 495 -3.38 -7.34 LAN NL 318 2.06 300 -0.50 177 -6.99 457 -2.31 -7.74 CIN NL 274 -1.14 239 1.00 156 -4.96 382 -2.67 -7.77 TBA AL 291 -0.56 256 -2.43 189 -5.66 355 0.00 -8.64 NYA AL 298 -4.04 294 0.66 171 -0.05 461 -5.91 -9.33 OAK AL 269 -0.84 296 0.36 82 -0.14 439 -8.71 -9.33 COL NL 337 1.16 271 -1.46 140 -12.96 430 3.91 -9.35 DET AL 296 2.70 279 -5.82 107 -15.49 444 9.14 -9.47 BOS AL 238 -1.89 297 2.68 75 -3.15 479 -7.65 -10.01 MIL NL 282 0.11 268 2.79 109 -8.47 384 -5.24 -10.81 ATL NL 326 1.50 265 0.70 88 -8.12 426 -6.30 -12.23 WAS NL 303 2.03 271 0.64 185 -15.29 421 -0.46 -13.08 TOR AL 294 -3.59 288 1.45 98 -8.22 456 -5.46 -15.82 CHA AL 245 -2.34 299 0.62 144 -9.29 459 -10.77 -21.77
The first thing that probably jumps out at you is that only three teams posted a net gain on the bases in 2006. That is not unexpected, and the direct result of the influence of EqSBR, where only four teams kept their head above water and 17 teams were at -5 or fewer runs thereby forcing many of the aggregates below zero. Without taking EqSBR into account, 14 teams scored positively with the Angels picking up an astounding 22.47 runs to the next highest total of 8.88 by the Marlins.
Even with EqSBR taken into account, and as discussed in a previous piece, the Angels looked good once again in 2006 perhaps as a result of an applied philosophy, this year contributing an additional 13.64 theoretical runs on the bases over what would be expected. This time they did it on the strength of an EqHAR of 15.62 (shown in the table below), outpacing the previous all-time high (since 2000 anyway) of the Devil Rays in 2005 (12.42). Had they not cost themselves almost nine runs in EqSBR (Adam Kennedy and
2006 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Name Opp OA EqHAR HARate Chone Figgins 56 0 4.93 171 Maicer Izturis 46 1 3.02 135 Orlando Cabrera 67 2 2.64 118 Juan Rivera 45 0 1.52 121 Robb Quinlan 13 0 1.49 141 Adam Kennedy 31 0 1.33 125 Tim Salmon 14 0 0.80 143 Reggie Willits 7 0 0.66 142 Erick Aybar 3 0 0.65 223 Dallas McPherson 5 0 0.50 196 Tommy Murphy 7 0 0.34 244 Garret Anderson 42 0 0.31 105 Mike Napoli 19 1 0.29 113 Edgardo Alfonzo 2 0 0.15 306 Vladimir Guerrero 39 0 0.09 102 Jeff Weaver 1 0 -0.01 0 Howie Kendrick 19 1 -0.02 99 Jose Molina 17 0 -0.08 97 Darin Erstad 7 0 -0.10 88 Jeff Mathis 3 0 -0.12 66 Curtis Pride 3 0 -0.34 0 Casey Kotchman 2 0 -0.45 0 Kendry Morales 14 2 -1.98 -16
The 2006 Devil Rays, on the other hand, after posting that 12.42 EqHAR in 2005 came out exactly even at 0.00 in 2006. Part of the reason was that Carl Crawford came in at only 0.40, since he was thrown out twice in his 40 opportunities and Aubrey Huff, Julio Lugo, and Joey Gathright weren’t enough to overcome Damon Hollins, Jonny Gomes, Travis Lee, and especially Toby Hall as shown in the table below.
2006 Tampa Bay Devil Rays Name Opp OA EqHAR HARate Aubrey Huff 17 0 1.85 201 Julio Lugo 23 0 0.69 126 Joey Gathright 15 0 0.57 127 Russell Branyan 8 0 0.56 152 B.J. Upton 9 0 0.56 129 Josh Paul 10 0 0.54 181 Dioner Navarro 11 0 0.47 135 Carl Crawford 40 2 0.40 105 Ty Wigginton 26 0 0.36 109 Jorge Cantu 24 0 0.21 105 Sean Burroughs 1 0 0.14 273 Delmon Young 9 0 0.10 122 Rocco Baldelli 20 0 0.01 100 James Shields 1 0 -0.02 0 Nick Green 1 0 -0.03 0 Ben Zobrist 10 0 -0.11 90 Shawn Riggans 4 0 -0.20 0 Greg Norton 25 1 -0.28 95 Tomas Perez 21 1 -0.55 80 Toby Hall 10 1 -1.02 -57 Travis Lee 21 0 -1.27 68 Jonny Gomes 27 1 -1.27 75 Damon Hollins 22 1 -1.71 48
On the other end of the spectrum the White Sox were a shade more than 21 runs in the hole. The Sox did especially poorly in EqHAR as only Scott Podsednik (although he gave it all away and then some in EqSBR by getting caught stealing 19 times and picked-off three times) and Pablo Ozuna contributed much on the positive side, as shown in the following table.
2006 Chicago White Sox Name Opp OA EqHAR HARate Scott Podsednik 50 0 1.74 127 Pablo Ozuna 22 0 1.16 142 Jerry Owens 2 0 0.33 221 Brian Anderson 21 0 0.33 106 Ryan Sweeney 3 0 0.16 243 Jose Contreras 1 0 -0.01 0 Juan Uribe 17 0 -0.08 96 Chris Widger 3 0 -0.28 0 Ross Gload 17 1 -0.40 90 Sandy Alomar Jr. 6 0 -0.41 0 Jermaine Dye 38 2 -0.70 88 Rob Mackowiak 18 1 -0.71 47 Alex Cintron 21 1 -0.79 74 Tadahito Iguchi 55 3 -1.01 89 Jim Thome 63 2 -1.11 90 Joe Crede 33 3 -2.44 54 A.J. Pierzynski 39 1 -2.69 52 Paul Konerko 50 0 -3.86 51
The Sox were also thrown out advancing 14 times, tied for third highest since 2000 with only the 2005 Phillies (18), the 2001 Braves (15), and the 2003 Cubs (15) racking up more. Incidentally, ChiSox fans who may be wondering whether new third base coach in 2006 Joey Cora was to blame should know that based on some preliminary research into the effect of third base coaches, Cora seems to have outperformed the personnel he had to work with. In other words, in baserunning opportunities over which he could have been said to have some influence, the team did slightly better in terms of theoretical runs than in other opportunities. The same can be said (surprisingly I know) for “Waving” Wendell Kim with the 2003 Cubs. No, the White Sox in 2006 were simply a very slow and distinctly non-“small ball” team, just as they were in their 2005 World Championship season.
The Blue Jays were also uniformly bad in 2006, while the Nationals were driven to the bottom in large part because of Alfonso Soriano‘s quest for the magical 40-40 distinction (-3.88 EqSBR but overall totals for 2006 can be found on my blog).
Once again this indicates that from top to bottom the spread in the number of theoretical runs gained on the bases is on the order of 30 in a single season, or the equivalent of three wins.
A League of Their Own
Although an AL team grabbed both the top and bottom spots, readers who look closely will note that NL teams captured seven of the top nine slots and AL teams seven of the bottom eleven. When totaled for the respective leagues what we find is shown in the following table.
2006 Total Baserunning by League Lg Opp EqGAR Opp EqAAR Opp EqSBR Opp EqHAR Total NL 4937 16.67 4223 3.78 2153 -102.18 6630 8.41 -73.32 AL 4003 -12.54 3930 -1.86 1769 -77.09 6367 -8.71 -100.20
As you can see, the NL outperforms the AL in each of the metrics except EqSBR, where their greater number of stolen base attempts leads to a lower overall figure. With EqSBR excluded, the AL is at -23.11 and the NL at 28.86. This disparity between the leagues can be interpreted as meaning that the NL is generally populated with baserunners who are more aggressive and more successful than their AL counterparts.
However, as with the recent discussion related to outfield arms on the Unfiltered blog, it could also be the case that the existence of the plodding designated hitters so weighs down AL teams that they perform worse on baserunning metrics. This would have the ancillary effect of making it appear AL outfielders do a better job of stopping runner advancement on hits. To help determine if this is indeed the case, I calculated the metrics aggregated on the primary position of the runner (the position at which they had the most plate appearances) across both leagues for 2006. The results are shown in the table below sorted by Total Runs.
2006 Break Down by Position POS Opps EqGAR GARate Opps EqAAR AARate Opps EqSBR Opps EqHAR HARate Total CF 1258 8.84 1.09 1034 12.87 1.11 984 -11.98 1554 48.36 1.19 58.10 SS 1098 15.11 1.17 993 0.79 1.01 751 -17.61 1517 12.47 1.05 10.76 2B 1114 7.10 1.08 1037 -2.06 0.98 543 -27.05 1541 27.88 1.12 5.87 LF 1116 -1.16 0.99 1049 0.62 1.01 563 -17.93 1715 11.93 1.04 -6.54 RF 1017 -0.08 1.00 925 -0.72 0.99 406 -25.48 1443 13.99 1.07 -12.29 3B 919 -0.77 0.99 877 0.58 1.01 287 -24.69 1548 8.87 1.04 -16.01 P 166 -2.64 0.71 151 -1.91 0.85 8 -1.40 262 -18.31 0.50 -24.27 DH 254 -3.78 0.75 296 -4.20 0.85 35 -9.88 493 -14.04 0.82 -31.89 1B 867 - 10.09 0.82 963 -1.18 0.99 175 -19.75 1541 -39.23 0.84 -70.25 C 1067 -9.03 0.88 781 -1.69 0.98 145 -22.63 1312 -52.75 0.73 -86.10
As intuition would tell us, neither DHs nor pitchers are very good baserunners. Looking at the rate statistics for EqGAR, EqAAR, and EqHAR, pitchers are slightly worse than DHs but garner fewer opportunities. Center fielders, on the other hand, are clearly the best baserunners with shortstops next followed by second basemen and then groupings of the corner outfielders and third basemen, first baseman and catchers, and finally DHs and pitchers bringing up the rear.
When we apply this positional analysis to EqHAR by removing the influence of DHs in the AL (comprising 484 opportunities or 7.6%) and pitchers in the NL (250 opportunities or 3.8%) we still find that the NL comes out on top 26.22 runs to 5.35, actually widening the gap somewhat. So even in removing the bad baserunners in both leagues we find the NL is superior in this metric. The only conclusion I can draw from this, at least until new evidence or a new theory comes to light, is that indeed the NL features more aggressive and better baserunners overall.
That’s a small consolation when you consider the recent dominance of the AL in interleague competition that has led some to apply different weightings to the leagues. But at this point fans of the NL will probably take what they can get.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now